About your Search

20121121
20121129
SHOW
Today 5
( more )
STATION
MSNBCW 39
CNNW 22
CSPAN 22
CSPAN2 15
CURRENT 10
KQED (PBS) 8
KNTV (NBC) 6
KQEH (PBS) 6
KRCB (PBS) 5
CNBC 4
COM 4
FBC 4
KGO (ABC) 4
KTVU (FOX) 3
KPIX (CBS) 2
( more )
LANGUAGE
English 179
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 179 (some duplicates have been removed)
in the run up to the election, one of the most famous of the mitt romney's going to win in a landslide people has decided now to turn to new data. data about a problem that does not exist. the process of publicly failing up continues. that story is next. >>> welcome to post election 2012 america. discredited and disqualified are totally unrelated. that's next. >>> welcome to post election 2012 america. discredited and disqualified are totally unrelated. that's next. - one serving of cheese is the size of four dice. one serving of cereal, a baseball. and one serving of fruit, a tennis ball. - you know, both parties agree. our kids can be healthier... the more you know. >>> things people are saying about the election that are not true, but it makes them feel better to say it any way. the man who came in second place for vice president this year is paul ryan. paul ryan, go. >> some of the turnout. some of the turnout in urban areas, which definitely gave president obama the big margin to win this race. >> president obama won reelection because of high turnout in urban areas. that's what paul rya
if you knew this-- we had an election and tonight on this program, the winner of that election, the president of the u.s.a., the united states of arithmetic, nate silver will be joining us ( cheers and applause ) it was a big night last night. the big news, of course, president barack obama not just re-elected but seemingly given fresh batteries. >> we remain more than a collection of red states and blue states. ry are and forever will be the united states of america. and together, with your help, and god's grace, we will continue our journey forward. ( laughter ). >> jon: so that's all it took for to you get back in the groove was the fact that you never have to run for president again? ( laughter ) that's all it took? ( cheers and applause ) of course, on the other side, governor mitt romney broke the bad news to his supporters before reluctantly being asked to pose for his family's yearly christmas card. ( laughter ). that is a good-looking bunch. it's like they-- the people that came in the frames. across the nation, the people spoke, legalizing gay marriage in maine and m
election that year, his senate seat would have become open. so the governor of massachusetts, the republican, mitt romney, would have been able to appoint somebody to fill john kerry's senate seat. the mts legislature totally dominated by democrats was cognizant that the governor would probably pick a republican to fill the seat if kerry got elected president. so the massachusetts state legislature decide d to change the law. they changed the law so that only a special election could fill a vacant seat. until then, the seat would have to be empty. mitt romney tried to veto that new law. but the legislature overrode his veto, thereby stripping mitt romney of his power to choose a replacement. that became a mute point because john kerry didn't win so he stayed on as senator. but then fast forward fife years. 2009. new president barack obama, the country embroiled in a big debate over national health reform. those against it were against it to the point of rage. and those wo who wanted it were excited to be on the cusp of achieving something they had failed to achieve for decade
that is might be less important in a campaign have had in this election or do you think it's been the same thing for a long time and nothing new here? >> i guess it's outside of the campaign's control. all of this happens organically. it's no longer information flows top down. it is surround and it is bottom up and there is no private space anymore. so the time honor tradition in politics of going to one group and saying one thing and to another group and saying something different you can't do anymore. so when you try to do it you'll be caught and exposed and your character will be revealed and in a lot of instances it will have a negative consequence. but for sure when you look at the campaigns and what goes on, the campaigns to a fundamental degree have lost control of the ability to control the message and to control the dialogue. everybody with a facebook page, everybody with a twitter account has an outlet to weigh in and shape the narratives and the story. so the ability to navigate that raging river so to speak and go with the flow is an important aspect of a presidential campaign. >> an
president obama's former campaign manager david plouffe and steve schmidt talk about the 2012 election. both mr. playoff and mr. schmidt attended the university of delaware. >> welcome back to the national agenda program. i'm director for the center of political communication. this is the final program of the 2012 presidential election season. i'm very very pleased that all of you are here tonight and i know that's a tribute to our two guest speakers this evening. two years ago in the wake of the sha lacking president obama took in the midterm congressional elections, the architect of the president's 2008 victory david plouffe stood on this stage and predicted the electorate voting in 2012 would be more diverse and younger than it was just two years earlier. he talked then about the growing latino electorate and he predicted that the obama campaign in 2012 would have to take advantage of those demographic opportunities. plouffe also predicted on this stage that the american people in 2012 would have had enough of republicans who were like glenn beck, sara palin and rush limbaugh. we are just
fundamentally flawed about a system where in order to get elected the members of congress have to rely on the very people who are lobbying them day in and day out. because that's their principal source of funding, those lobbyists and the interests they represent. >> funding is provided by: carnegie corporation of new york, celebrating 100 years of philanthropy, and committed to doing real and permanent good in the world. the kohlberg foundation. independent production fund, with support from the partridge foundation, a john and polly guth charitable fund. the clements foundation. park foundation, dedicated to heightening public awareness of critical issues. the herb alpert foundation, supporting organizations whose mission is to promote compassion and creativity in our society. the bernard and audre rapoport foundation. the john d. and catherine t. macarthur foundation, committed to building a more just, verdant, and peaceful world. more information at macfound.org." anne gumowitz. the betsy and jesse fink foundation. the hkh foundation. barbara g. fleischman. and by our sole corporate
's lead, the winning argument. president obama won the election. he won the debate on fairness and he's winning this fight in washington and now even some republicans admit it. in the election, 65 million americans voted for fairness. they stood with the president who says everyone should pay their fair share, that there's just something fundamentally wrong with the millionaire paying less in tacks than his or her secretary. president obama drove that point home again today demanding that the rich pay more so the burden doesn't fall on the middle class. >> our first job is to make sure that taxes on middle class families don't go up and since we all theoretically agree on that, we should get that done. i know some of this might sound familiar to you because we talked about this a lot during the campaign. this shouldn't be a surprise to anybody. this was a major debate in the presidential can campaign and congressional campaigns all across the country. >> that's what this election was all about, americans were with him on election day. and they are still with him now. a newark ton post
presidential election in the united states, there was something if he went through their public and primaries that people were saying it's not this person. tim pawlenty drops out and then michele bachmann drops out and then newt gingrich drops out and eventually you are left with the last person standing. it's not about picking a winner. it's about picking losers. this is not the 1 -- person and finally gets the last person standing. >> host: a process of elimination, which is consistent in whatever organization it is. >> guest: i think it is in the sense that it's a simplified version of reality, that i think you used to build very. theory star simple and you make a more complex but if you take ge. ge is famous for the way it chooses leaders. we always tell her students, ge is the company that works in practice but not in theory. it doesn't seem to do anything as we say it should do but it is profitable and successful. if you had to pick ge's core competency it seems to be it's good at picking leaders and developing managers in training managers and picking the right people. ge spends 20 y
or relief that at least the election didn't end up in a situation where obama won the electoral vote but romney got the popular vote. i agree that would have been bad. it would have denied the democrat the clear mandate. the implication from the right wing seemed to have been had the republican candidate won the popular vote, there would be trouble of some undefined type. what the heck did that mean? yes, we've had to put up with this ridiculous secession petitions out there, the texas version having been signed by over 100,000 people since election day, but could the right have gone further had it been armed with a popular vote victory? there does seem to be a difference in the two parties. when al gore lost 12 years ago, he ignored his 600,000 vote victory in the popular vote. he just learned to live with the irony. republicans have carefully forgotten this bit of history, but i have real doubts those on the angry, demanding right would have been so quietly obedient to constitutional law. there's something out there on the right right now that is still uneasy with this defeat. sear
along with a majority in the house and regularly re-electing democratic or republican presidents. i think the best route is for the first one. get this filibuster thing done and get it back to what it was back in the 1930s, when we could all root for jimmy stewart and hope he could be that corrupt political machine we all love to hate in that greatest of all political movies. that's "hardball" for now. thanks for being with us. "politicsnation" with al sharpton starts right now. >> thanks, chris. and thanks to you for tuning in. tonight's lead, the mccain gang wants what it wants. today u.n. ambassador susan rice went to capitol hill to meet with the three republican senators who have been her harshest critics over what she said on sunday talk shows about the attacks on the u.s. consulate in benghazi, libya. it was a meeting ambassador rice requested to try and clear the air. she went to the meetings with the acting cia director. but the republican senators were not swayed, not in the least. in fact, it sounded like they had settled on their talking points. here's what they said aft
6th, the election is over. >> presidential election, your prediction was wrong. >> big time. >> people are open on entitlement reform in a way they haven't been in the past. >> my analysis based on fact, not emotion. >> oh, my -- >> oh, wow. >> things people are saying about the election that are not true, but it makes them feel better to say it anyway. >> we start on a very important day that the world can be thankful for. a cease-fire in the middle east. secretary of state hillary clinton is heading home now after she and her egyptian counterpart announced the deal to end hostilities and greater cooperation between israel and gaza in the near future. >> the united states welcomes the agreement today for a cease-fire in gaza, for it to hold, the rocket attacks must end. a broader calm returned. the people of this region deserve the chance to live free from fear and violence and today's agreement is a step in the right direction that we should build on. >> this news comes after more than a week of violence that claimed 140 palestinian and 5 israeli lives. obviously, this day
's filtration processes. the most recent presidential election in the united states. there was something, if you went through the republican primaries, that people were saying, well, it's not this person. it's not -- tim drops out after the iowa caucuses and michele bachmann, and newt gingrich, and you're left with a last person standing. most often, it's not about picking a winner, but it's about picking losers. this is not the person. this is not the person, and finally, you get a last person standing. >> host: process of elimination. >> guest: exactly. >> host: which is consistent in whatever organization it is? >> guest: so -- >> host: has to be? >> guest: i think it is in the sense that it's a platonic idea, a simp fied # version of reality that i think you use to build theory. start with simple and make them more complex, but if you take, say, ge. so ge is famous for the way it chooses leaders. ge, we always tell students ge is a company that works in practice, but not in theory. it doesn't seem to do anything of the things we say it should do, but it's incredibly profit l and successful.
the election was all about. john boehner, if he is serious, will have to find out, but he certainly isn't very smart. the congressional budget office estimates, they show that the affordable care act will actually reduce the deficit. it doesn't make a lot of sense to get rid of a deficit reduction program, as part of a deficit reduction deal. the white house already rejected boehner's idea. obama care will not be part of debt negotiations. boehner is up to something here, don't you think? something else, that is. if you watch john boehner closely over the last two weeks, you can see him laying the ground work for the latest ploy. he call eed obama care the law the land, but also tried to link it to obama care and the budget. >> you had said, next year, that you would repeal the health care vote. that's still your mission? >> well, i think the election changes that. it's pretty clear that the president was re-elected. obama care is the law of the land. i think there are parts of the health care law that are going to be very difficult to implement. and very expensive. and at a time where we're t
government austerity on the rest of the country. all three collapsed in this election in 2012. now they have to decide which is strong enough to survive. my personal theory is the business wing was always the strongest and will be the surviving wing and you can hear that in the talk about loosening up on immigration. the business wing wants loser immigration rules. i think they're the one that's going to try to assert themselves but that's a cross purposes with the tea party wing that is dead set against immigration. >> don't trust the goodwill of the business community. the labor unions ought to be organizes, everybody comes in legal or not. the business community doesn't want real work, fast as they can and cheap as they can. >> to john about history. you and i remember i think back in 1988 as far back then, the democrats had won a race, this is a race, the key thing is not that you lose or lose by a lot, didn't lose by a huge amount, when you lose when you think you're going to win. that's when you rethink your party. just like dukakis, everybody thought he has it, going to work, the new
in this election. what made them think so? the polls were tight but favoring president obama. what north star was guiding the gop convincing them that the white house would be back in their hands in january? back where their hankerings were convinced it belonged? there was a darker side to this deep sense of executive entitlement, the sense they had the same assumed access to the white house as they did in the corporate dining room. it's more than a bit frighting. i have heard at least one person of the right state their pained belief or relief that at least the election didn't end up in a situation where obama won the electoral vote but romney got the popular vote. i agree that would have been bad. it would have denied the democrat the clear mandate. the implication from the right wing seemed to have been had the republican candidate won the popular vote, there would be trouble of some undefined type. what the heck did that mean? yes, we've had to put up with this ridiculous secession petitions out there, the texas version having been signed by over 100,000 people since election day, but cou
's not unique to this election or republican party. in 2004 many democrats believed he had a device on his shoulder so he would be given instructions during the debate. it's snanty. i think in our politics today both parties want to construct an image of their opponent that is not grounded in reaty. so the alternative universe. there are two. one is the romney campaign had an unrealistic view of what the electorate was going to be and that was one of the reasons they lost. certainly one of the reasons they went in the election confident. th wasn't an act. they thought they were going to win. but there is this view of barack obama. if you read and watch the conservative entertainment complex how could this guy get re-elected because we're socialist and week on terism and we're not honest and tt's not how most of america cease the president. even those that voted against us, most of them don't see us that way. so that is the problem. i think it's an underestimating of your opponent's strength and the reality of how people view them. d there was a ridicule that i think -- i don't fully unders
-faced. it has to do -- people at headquarters, they show up at election night, unless the guy or woman loses and they get excited about the guy near election night because they want a job. they want something. they want to be loved by the winner. then they treat the guy like a ticket at off-track betting on the floor you're stomping around on. is that the best case against the case being made against the republican party, it's a bunch of people just not loyal? that's what he's saying. >> absolutely, chris. look, i've been through this time and time again, that people are measuring the drapes before the first debate ends, especially if the nominee does a very good job. >> now they're measuring the crepe. >> true. mitt romney unfortunately never had any -- a loyal following, if you will, except for the folks in boston. the conservatives never trusted him. they didn't even trust him when he got the republican nomination back in the spring of this year. the point is these individuals are opportunists, both on the republican side and also on the democratic side. they don't care about loyalty. the
't quite get readers as excited? >> not as titillating. >> this is what the election was fought over and yet i have the impression that a lot of the country is yawning but really many of the journalists covering the story are oning. >> there's a story about low how the mighty are falling. privacy, security, while covering the sex. >> are you suggesting that the bigger issues are actually a bit of a shall we say figure lea le? there are bigger issues there but the problem is the fiscal cliff is extremely important. it's interesting to me that it's ben bernanke who dubbed it. i would have thought a reporter would have dubbed it. >> as a consumer of newses, when you see stories about the fiscal cliff do you go clicking off to someone else? >> no. i don't. i try. i try my darnest. i pick up the stories and think i'm going to understand it for once. it's a big, big story if you're covering economic on a national stage. i think it is getting covered a lot yochl ku. blame the media if readers are going to be clicking more or turning more to story about petraeus. >> the problem wo budget sto
him, the people who elected him so he would defend the people. >> reporter: that could provoke more trouble after a weekend of violence hitting liberal and secular factions against morse's islamist supporters. last night in cairo, protesters threw rocks at police who fired back with tear gas. demonstrators also clashed with pro-morsi egyptians. attacks on the local offices of the muzz lum brotherhood left one teenager dead and dozens of people wounded. thousands of the president's backers staged rallies in several cities. >> we support mohamed morsi's correct decision and eventually the good from the bad will be distinguishable. we support dr. morsi. >> u.s. officials raised concerns about morsi's decree. today the state department's victoria newlyand called for calm. >> what is important to us is that these issues be slelgted through dialogues, that these issues be selgtzed democraticry. we are encouraged that the various important stakeholders in egypt are now talking to each other, that president morsi is consulting on the way forward but we're not going to prejudge where that wi
campaigner. we congratulate him on his re-election. what we don't know is whether he has the leadership qualities necessary to lead his party to a bipartisan agreement on big issues like we currently face. >> reporter: what you're seeing here is a slightly different strategy than we've seen in the past. that's the president focusing more on stakeholders, making his case to the public. bringing business leaders here to the white house, going on the road. and spending less time with lawmakers at least up to this point. >> sounds like a pressure tactic rather than perhaps a negotiation tactic. we'll keep on it, and let us know who else goes through those doors. dan lothian, thank you very much. you know, as we watch this story playing out, each side wants the other to give in. or at least give a little more in the fiscal tug-of-war. in a little less than a couple of minutes now, we'll see what the republicans want from the democrats. and what they might offer to get what they want. n't just listen . listen to these happy progressive customers. i plugged in snapshot, and 30 days later, i wa
the election about the fiscal cliff. what is at stake here for both sides? what happens if they don't get a deal? >> well, look. i think what happens to both sides, it's not even what happens to both sides, what happens to us which is the collective, right? it's what happens to the country which is 4% of gdp disappears overnight. and that's what this is all about. by the way, it's not just about what happens january 1st or 11:59 the day before january 1st. it's already starting to impact the economy. whether it impacts consumers -- and we'll find out today, by the way, in terms of thanksgiving and what's that meant, whether consumers are coming out or not -- but thoorz the bigger issue that manufacturing has already started to slow down. people are starting to worry. it may end up in the economic numbers already, just the fact that we're having this debate. and then come january 1st, do we go over? what does that mean? is it the fiscal cliff? or does it look like the fiscal bungee cord? that's what some people are calling it. we go over for two weeks and then we snap back and get a deal a
! cut taxes for the wealthiest! i'm glad we had an election, guys. the whole point of the election was to raise taxes on the rich and now they're turning around and say we'll take money from them too we're going to. >> you and stick you with the bill and give it to the rich. if only someone had warned you about this. july of this year, well before the election, democrats were talking about we're going to raise taxes on the rich and we're going to take away those bush tax cuts for the rich, somebody had a different idea. let's see if we can figure out who that is. >> the democrats are acting tough now. this is definitely a positive story. they say they're going to let all this stuff expire and only bring tax cuts for the middle class. they will do no such thing. if president obama wins, they will sign a grand bargain where they will cut social security, medicare, cult programs for the poor cut programs for the middle class and yes, they will give some tax cuts definitely to corporations, and perhaps even to the rich. >> perhaps even to the rich. it looks like we're headed towards th
reelection in two years. you can read too much into this election. this was not a mandate. this was a popular vote to% election, even electoral votes when he looked at the states, separated by 2%, 3%, 4%. this was not some kind of major reelection when like reagan had, like even clnton had. clinton might think, won by 8%, reagan nine, ten, 11%. there is no real mandate here. so i can't see the republicans getting too overwhelmed by these ads. the president's new popularity numbers just came out. it's 51 percent. that is a pretty small jump for a guy you just won an election. tom: t only people are really concerned, two years from now there is another whole house -- house members that will be reelected. >> and they have to go back to district that elected them to lower taxes. so you go back to that district. you promise you'll never vote for a tax increase. taxes go up. tom: two years later. >> and membersof congress think about themselves and their reelection. tom: let me ask you bout retail. on the cusp of thanksgiving, but friday coming up. all kinds of issues. you are telling me before we
the church has its own processes, it don't elections, hard for some to understand and we have to respect individual institutions and the decision they make but it doesn't mean we should hold back and say what we think. i think it is clear in the time is right for women bishops. they need to get on with it and get with the program but you do have to respect the individual institutions when they're getting a shark fraud. >> the big country, e.u. agreed to by the last labor government, time for it costing taxpayers two billion pounds every single year. will the prime minister please confirm the forthcoming budget negotiations, he will not agree to any further reduction in this debate? >> i certainly give my hon. friend that assurance. the rebate negotiated by margaret thatcher is an incredibly important part of britain's position of making sure we get a fair deal. .. >> could i congratulate the prime minister on the wise decision to bring the gm summit. could i confirm to the prime minister the enthusiasm with which it's been received. could i ask him if he believes that it will be possible
. let me give you the phone numbers again. how did you vote in the last election? did you vote with the intention of one-party rule in your state legislature? what are your priorities, if so? let me read this -- on a federal level, folks believe a divided government has republicans in control of the house and democrats in control of the senate and president obama reelected to a second term in the white house. on a federal level, people believed compromise is possible. not so, says the new york times, on the state level. what are your thoughts on this? we also posted the question on our facebook page. we have a couple comments -- you can post your comments as well on facebook if you want to participate that way, or send us an e-mail or a tweet. this is inside the new york times and they have a chart showing the outcomes of the 2012 elections -- that's how it breaks down. norma is a democrat in st. petersburg, florida. what is your state legislature like and what are your priorities? caller: i voted democratic. i believe that obama offered than did the republican party. the candi
had. it is where they were before the election. they gotta wake up and see the election, change things and they actually have to meet democrats somewhere in the middle. >> bill: i would hope. i would hope. new york times this morning, front page of the business section in terms of closing loopholes, romney was never specific about which one. new york times is saying that they know -- now we know one of the ones they're targeting. the headline is a tax break once sacred is now seen as vulnerable. what they're talking about is the mortgage interest deduction. there was no doubt it is on the table. it is one they're targeting rather than raise tax rates on the wealthy, they're going to either limit or get rid of the mortgage interest deduction. which is the most popular one. >> the most popular one. politically difficult i think. that's really the problem with romney's entire approach that said we'll just create revenue by closing loopholes. you go down the list of the largest loopholes and pretty quickly, you get to
, and it has become susan rice for quite some time during the election period as well as this time frame, and that seems to be a where a lot of public focus is, even though they raise criticisms about the intelligence community nor broadly. >> absolutely. kelly, thank you so much. joining me now is former state department middle east officer joel ruben, and molly ball and michael skirmonsih and jimmy williams. you heard kelly o'donnell report that the face of all of this is susan rice, but we know that the intelligence, the talking points, if you will, did not originate from her or the u.n. is it appropriate she's the face of all of this in your opinion? >> thank you, tamron, for having me on. it's unfortunate that dr. rice has become the face of this, because, in fact, she is a highly regarded accomplished civil servant leading our mission in the united nations. she was put in the spotlight in order to communicate what the intelligence community and administration believed to be the best way to communicate the attack on benghazi. rightly now congress is looking at the question of what w
. the president campaigned on this vision. and he won re-election. at least i think he did. but it also seems like the whitehouse white house is still considering another grand bargain. >> i think what we need to do and the president believes this is, let's go for the big deal. let's go for something that we can say for a 10 to 20-year period for the first time in a long time, our country is on the right sustainable fiscal path. the only way that gets done is for republicans to step out again and mercilessly get criticized by grover and norquist on the right. >> if this sounds familiar to you folks, it should because back income 2011, president obama brokered a deal with house speaker john boehner to avoid crashing through the debt ceiling. the deal was ultimately rejected by the republicans but we know it included cuts to the entitlement programs. according to "the new york times," president obama agreed to squeeze $250 billion from medicare in the next ten years with $800 billion moral in the decade after that. he was also willing to cut 110 billion from medicaid in the short term. democrats in
. president obama's re-election means the taxes for upper income earners are going up one way or another. speaker john boehner deserves some leeway to try to mitigate the damage by negotiating a larger tax reform. leeway to negotiate sounds pretty sane to me. for some, of course, that's a great big lump of coal wrapped up as an early christmas present. >> revenue that happens to be the democratic code word for tax increases. that is simply not an acceptable position for any true conservative. republicans were not elected to rubber stamp obama's agenda. >> seems some news personalities may be taking a tax increase on the highest earners somewhat personally. anyway, republicans didn't win the white house or the senate. i wonder what other conservatives have to say about that. >> the republicans are in a shocking amount of disarray right now. the republican party has not developed an alternative idea set other than what mitt romney and paul ryan were campaigning on and sort of by default it has become their opening negotiation position. >> i see. so their opening position is the one that wa
to "the ed show" tonight. "what david plouffe has stated concerns me deeply. in the election and in poll after poll after poll at a time when the middle class is disappearing and the numb of people living in poverty is at an all-time high. the american people demanded that there be no benefit cuts to medicare, medicaid and social security for those who are doing well must be asked to play a significant role. here, here. i'm on board with that. the public agrees with senator sanders. i'm not the only one. in the latest cnn poll, 56% of americans believe that taxes for the wealthy should be raised to help pay for programs such as medicare and medicaid. this is in line with exactly what president obama said on the campaign trail and in his first speech after winning reelection. the president said that we would not balance the budget on the backs of those struging in our society. are those people being asked to bend a little bit despite the tremendous victory that liberals had in november? i think it was november 6th, wasn't it? not real long ago. so here we are setting some dangerous bounda
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 179 (some duplicates have been removed)